WN Asks Pax to Stop Recording BWI Ejection
Sep 28, 2017, 10:48 am
#136
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,881
Based on your handle, you probably still think UA did no wrong on the Dao incident.
Sep 28, 2017, 11:00 am
#137
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,881
What would WN have done if the lady had her medical certificate? The lady and the two paxs with dogs both had rights to be there. So what happens? Flip a coin?
Sep 28, 2017, 11:07 am
#139
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 948
At that point in time it wouldn't have mattered if they removed the dogs, they would still have canine particles in the plane, and passengers are strongly encouraged to notify them of allergies in good time prior to the flight, she obviously didn't.
If you claim to have a life threatening allergy of any sort and they are unable to transport you safely because you notify them too late they will not risk a diversion.
WN acted the only way it could, and offered her a nice way out of it - presumably on the next flight. She flat out refused when she realised her lie wouldn't give her the outcome she desired.
If you claim to have a life threatening allergy of any sort and they are unable to transport you safely because you notify them too late they will not risk a diversion.
WN acted the only way it could, and offered her a nice way out of it - presumably on the next flight. She flat out refused when she realised her lie wouldn't give her the outcome she desired.
Sep 28, 2017, 11:14 am
#140
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Programs: UA, BA Avios, AMEX Plat
Posts: 497
1) Ask passengers to re-seat to allow her to be as far as possible from the dog(s).
2) Ask if she'd like to re-book to another flight where they could offer the seating assistance before people board, per their policy.
Of course, this doesn't eliminate the fact that the plane is "contaminated" at this point - removing the dogs wouldn't fix this anyway.
Sep 28, 2017, 11:16 am
#141
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,881
I haven't read any report where WN offered an alternative flight or attempted to resolve her situation. WN's statement was simply we repeatedly explained the situation and then asked her to leave. Explaining the situation is not resolving the situation.
Sep 28, 2017, 11:17 am
#142
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,881
Or 3) ask if the pax w dogs like to re-book with compensation.
Sep 28, 2017, 11:26 am
#143
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,512
Dogs owners can board after passengers with allergy issues are already seated. Failure to notice the animal(s) ahead of time shouldn't prejudice the outcome.
WN's promise to "ensure that the Customer with the allergy is seated as far away from the animal as possible" was never implemented. Nor likely contemplated.
With dogs flying in multiples, it's hard to picture this ever being practical.
Sep 28, 2017, 11:29 am
#144
Join Date: Oct 2001
Programs: LTP, PP
Posts: 8,700
But I have no persuasive reasoning other than I need my sleep so that is the right move.
I simply find events like this comical where the questionable needs of the one outweigh the needs of many (in this case to get the friggin plane moving).
Sep 28, 2017, 11:35 am
#145
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 172
So confused now!
The analogy is as follows:
The owner of a property, be that a house or a plane, permits another person to be present on the property. Subsequently, as a result of a change in circumstances, the owner asks the person to leave, thereby withdrawing the permission. The person refuses to leave.
The analogy is as follows:
The owner of a property, be that a house or a plane, permits another person to be present on the property. Subsequently, as a result of a change in circumstances, the owner asks the person to leave, thereby withdrawing the permission. The person refuses to leave.
Sep 28, 2017, 11:40 am
#146
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: ATL
Posts: 1,924
What is this magical "deplane the entire plane" process that somehow gets her off the plane when she's already refused to do so when told to by the FAs and Law Enforcement?
If anything, video of the forced ejection probably supports Southwest's story; it's why cops have cameras. Even if she's the last one on, I would think Law Enforcement would want to video the process of removing her.
If anything, video of the forced ejection probably supports Southwest's story; it's why cops have cameras. Even if she's the last one on, I would think Law Enforcement would want to video the process of removing her.
Sep 28, 2017, 11:40 am
#147
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,512
Airlines, landlords, customers and renters all have intersecting rights.
Sep 28, 2017, 11:45 am
#148
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 172
Sep 28, 2017, 11:58 am
#149
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,512
It's also unproven that the airline denied her request to inject herself on board to alleviate symptoms.
Failure to produce a medical "waiver" isn't much of a legal fig leaf.
Sep 28, 2017, 11:59 am
#150
Join Date: May 2009
Location: EUG
Programs: AS MVP, AA MM, HH Diamond, MR Gold
Posts: 8,220
So why did she even board the plane where the dogs already were? Of course she was lying about it. And why did they even let her board? If they say at the Gate, "you can't board because of your LTA and the dogs are already on board", how did she ever get onto the plane at all to then refuse to leave?